£6.5m sale ends in disgrace as solicitor banned for misleading text and cover-up attempt

The solicitor was struck off for breaching an undertaking and trying to block a misconduct report to the SRA

A solicitor who misled a client during a £6.5 million property sale and then tried to suppress a regulatory complaint has been struck off the roll.

Charles Stevens, formerly of Essex-based firm Bawtrees LLP, was handling a major property transaction when he breached an implicit undertaking to transfer a £650,000 deposit. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found his conduct not only reckless but also deceptive, culminating in an attempt to block a complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

Stevens gave the seller’s solicitor an undertaking to send the deposit by a certain date. But when the deadline arrived, he falsely claimed via text message that the funds were “in the system”—despite not having received them. He later admitted to the tribunal that he believed the client was still in the process of transferring the money, but had no confirmation.

The SRA argued Stevens had no business giving the undertaking if he knew the funds were unavailable. His misrepresentation left the client dangerously exposed to potential legal action to recover the £650,000.

Matters worsened when Stevens attempted to prevent the fallout from reaching the SRA. During settlement negotiations with the seller’s legal team, he sent a highly inappropriate email implying that the matter would only settle if the other side agreed not to report him or his firm to the Law Society or the regulator.

“If you can confirm this, then I think we are agreed,” Stevens wrote.

The seller’s solicitors ignored his attempt to negotiate silence and reported the conduct anyway.

Appearing before the tribunal, Stevens—who was admitted as a solicitor in 2007—denied acting recklessly and insisted he was simply relaying his client’s settlement terms. The panel rejected this claim and found all allegations proven.

In a damning written judgment, the SDT said the misconduct revealed “a serious lack of integrity at a very high level,” noting that the events took place on two separate occasions just weeks apart. The tribunal saw this not as an isolated lapse, but as part of a worrying behavioural pattern.

Stevens also failed to self-report his own actions and instead, according to the tribunal, attempted to “hide behind his client” while pressuring a fellow solicitor to ignore their regulatory duty. This, they concluded, was a serious breach of professional standards.

“The respondent had taken active steps to prevent the conduct being reported to the SRA, effectively hiding behind his client and attempting to persuade a fellow solicitor not to fulfil their own regulatory reporting responsibilities,” the SDT wrote.

As a result of his actions, Stevens has been struck off the roll. Due to his limited financial means, the tribunal made no order for costs.

The decision sends a stark message across the legal profession: attempts to cover up breaches of integrity—especially when paired with dishonesty or manipulation—will not be tolerated. The SDT’s judgment makes clear that even seasoned solicitors face the harshest consequences when they undermine the trust and transparency essential to legal practice.